Another Nobel Laureate
by Steve PetermannCertainly when Nobel Laureates speak we should listen. They have, after all, been recognized as powerful thinkers who made remarkable contributions to science. Does the fact that 39 Noble Laureates have come out in support of Darwinian evolutionary theory mean there are no thinkers in this category who oppose Darwinian theory with equal force and expertise. No. Presumably Elie Wiesel who apparently spearheaded this letter contacted many Nobel Laureates to ask them to sign up. It would be interesting to see the list of those who declined. Given the current climate would many of them be willing to express their misgivings concerning Darwinian theory. Not likely. There is, however, one who does so very eloquently.
Judging from Nobel Laureate physicist Robert B. Laughlin's new book A Different Universe if he had been contacted he would have declined. In fact in his book he offers a searing criticism of reductionist approaches to science in general among which he strongly criticizes Darwinian "theory". There is so much in his book that relates to the Darwinian/ID controversy I'll have several posts regarding its implications. However on this topic he states:
Most important of all, however, the presence of such corollaries raises the concern that much of present-day biological knowledge is ideological. A key symptom of ideological thinking is the explanation that has no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it. Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!
Now some will say that portions of this quote could apply equally well to intelligent design theory. Perhaps so. However, judging from the amount of ink that is being deposited these days around intelligent design, one would be hard pressed to suggest that ID is not stimulating thought both of ID proponents and critics. According to this, Darwinian theory currently does nothing to stimulate the thought of most working scientists. Will ID ever reach a status of theory according to Laughlin's criterion? Hard to say. Now judging from his book Laughlin is no supporter of ID but his forthright criticism of Darwinism suggests that not all powerful thinkers happily support the Darwinian camp.
September 18th, 2005 at 2:22 pm
"Your protein defies the laws of mass action"
Non-biologists seem to be especially prone to making stupid comments about biology. I wonder if there is a correlation between this proclivity and the stance the sources of these comments take on ID.
Sounds like a nice psych-soc ID-related project. (For a small fee, I'd be glad to be the judge of what is inane and what is not.
)
Comment by Art — September 18, 2005 @ 2:22 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Art,
As I said Laughlin is no friend of ID. He is a Nobel Prize physicist and I would presume he knows much more about molecular physics than biologists. Have you got more than rhetoric to refute Laughlin's statement?
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 18, 2005 @ 2:42 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
Steve, if the quote is an example of Laughlin's understanding of biology, and if it is representative of his understanding of evolutionary theory, then his claims about the usefulness of evolutionary theory in biology need no refuting. Because they are based on a lack of understanding that goes beyond the ridiculous, and are rather far far into the preposterous.
To use a sports analogy, Laughlin's statement is a bit like arguing that baseball has no place in US history because the concept of a goalie defies 3-4 defensive principles. There's nothing to refute, but lots to shake one's head at.
Comment by Art — September 18, 2005 @ 3:01 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
Art,
In that case I would guess you'd recommend we discount the statement of all of the Nobel Laureates in the letter because none are biologists and therefore don't understand Darwinian evolution.
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 18, 2005 @ 3:25 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
Steve, the other Nobelists didn't make stupid statements about biology and evolution. Laughlin did.
Do you see the difference?
Comment by Art — September 18, 2005 @ 3:31 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 3:45 pm
Art,
Oh really. Those Nobelists agreed to:
As scientists how could they possibly support such a claim? What confirmable evidence would they offer that evolution is unguided and unplanned.
To me this should be an embarassement to the Nobel committee that winners would abandon their own presumed scientific standards to make such a claim. Sounds like this confirms what Laughlin says:
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 18, 2005 @ 3:45 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
Steve, it seems to me as if you are saying that, because in your opinion other Nobelists said something wrong about evolution (they really didn't, but that's not the subject of this blog entry), then Laughlin's statement, which is wrong no matter how you look at it, should be considered a valid crciticism of evolutionary theory (or, more correctly, an accurate swipe at the roles that evolutionary theory play in biology).
This sort of reasoning has been defended by the bloggers here before, but it still is bogus.
It's also interesting how the ID vanguard, and the bloggers here, have bought Laughlin's remark. This will make an excellent talking point for the school board and biology teachers in my district should the ID dog and pony show ever wheel into town. Here's how the presentation will go:
"According to leading ID proponents and their followers, proteins "defy the laws of mass action." (Here is where the high school biology teachers scratch their heads, because they, along with generations upon generations of biochemists, have taught and been taught that proteins aka enzymes do not change the final equilibrium concentration ratios of the reactions they catalyze. In other words, they obey, in verey conceivable sense, the laws of mass action.) "ID proponents have held this (and other incorrect) statements up as items that refute or confound evolutionary theory. But the statement is wrong. Categorically, unequivocally, completely, entirely, utterly incorrect. This is, thus, one clear example (more will follow [but not on this blog - I've gotta save some good stuff for the "big time"
] of how ID proponents wish to inject badly mistaken assertions into the classroom, all for the purpose of creating a non-existent controversy.
Also, note that this atrophy of reasoning and logic, which runs rampant in the pro-ID movement, can also afflict Nobel Prize winners (one of whom is the source of the mistaken ID assertion). In a nutshell, this is your brain on ID."
So, Steve, I'd like you to defend Laughlin's assertion. Specifically, explain how enzymes actually do defy the laws of mass action. Prose, links, references, all will be appreciated.
Comment by Art — September 18, 2005 @ 5:02 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
LOL. It seems as if everytime I poke Dawkins, Art gets testy. Oh well, maybe it's just a coincidence. But since Art is The Expert, I have a question for him: Is retinal a protein?
Comment by MikeGene — September 18, 2005 @ 5:22 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
Steve Petermann writes: "Certainly when Nobel Laureates speak we should listen. They have, after all, been recognized as powerful thinkers who made remarkable contributions to science. Does the fact that 39 Noble Laureates have come out in support of Darwinian evolutionary theory mean there are no thinkers in this category who oppose Darwinian theory with equal force and expertise."
On another list it was pointed out that the makeup of the list of Nobel Laureates based on the fields in which they received their prize is:
Economics => 1
Peace => 4
Physics => 9
Medicine => 11
Chemistry => 13
Nobel prizes notwithstanding, what qualifies an economist or a peacemaker (politician?) or a physicist, etc, to comment on what should or should not be taught in a BIOLOGY class in public schools in the United States?
Comment by DonaldM — September 18, 2005 @ 5:25 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
Art:
Like you wonder.
Come now, Art. You come to the table with the stereotype that anyone who takes ID seriously is either stupid, dishonest, or deluded by their religious desires. We know how you view us all. With that stereotype guiding your mind, you are simply looking for things that you expect to see. And psychology teaches us that the human brain tends to see what it expects to see. What's that? Do you think you are so special or smart that this does not apply to you?
Sounds rather banal to me. A much more interesting project was suggested here.
Comment by MikeGene — September 18, 2005 @ 5:32 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
Art writes: "So, Steve, I'd like you to defend Laughlin's assertion. Specifically, explain how enzymes actually do defy the laws of mass action. Prose, links, references, all will be appreciated."
I think Art has completely missed Laughlin's point in the quote. It seems pretty clear that he's saying no matter what turns up, "evolution did it." Look carefully at the quote from Laughlin "Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it!" The question on protein in this context is not an assertion about the actual behavior of proteins. The context makes it pretty clear that Laughlin is saying "suppose you discover a protein that defies the laws of mass action, well, evolution can account for that as easily as it accounts for proteins obeying the laws of mass action."
In other words, whichever way it goes, evolution (or something like it) just HAS to be the explanation. It seems pretty clear that this is Laughlin's point.
Comment by DonaldM — September 18, 2005 @ 5:39 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
Mike G writes: "Come now, Art. You come to the table with the stereotype that anyone who takes ID seriously is either stupid, dishonest, or deluded by their religious desires."
Or wicked, (but he'd rather not consider that!)
Comment by DonaldM — September 18, 2005 @ 5:42 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 5:46 pm
Donald,
What is even more significant about The 38 is that they would fail ID101. According to them, "In contrast, intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent." The prize winners are obviously experts on the topics that earned them their prize, but they are simply reacting to ID in a knee-jerk fashion. After all, how many papers have these 38 written that explore the possibility that life may have been designed. I've been looking, and it seems the answer is "“ zero.
This latest decree is only significant as part of the socio-political debate. After all, that's the only reason/context for the prize winners to say anything about this issue. And what is most interesting is that they have described evolution from a particular metaphysical perspective "“ a perspective that Ken Miller assured us was not part of mainstream science.
Comment by MikeGene — September 18, 2005 @ 5:46 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 5:54 pm
Mike,
I do wonder how many of the 38 Nobel signatories actually read what they put their name to. How did Weisel get the 38 to sign on? Did he provide each one with an acutal copy of the statement or did he ask if he could use their name as Nobel winners to support teaching evolution, without going into the details of the actual statement?
As for Ken Miller, I already commented elsewhere that in his own Biology textbook, widely used in high schools around the US (my own daughter used it in her bio class), he and Levine wrote: "evolution proceeds without plan or purpose." How can Miller claim that naturalism (or something like it) is not part of mainstream science, when he himself put it in his textbook?
Comment by DonaldM — September 18, 2005 @ 5:54 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
It was just brought to my attention that there is no Nobel Prize in Biology. So it is possible that some of those in Medicine might be Biologists. Even so, my larger point, and those mentioned by Mike still stand.
Comment by DonaldM — September 18, 2005 @ 6:02 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 6:09 pm
Michael Behe describes who is more qualified to comment about the correctness of evolutionary biology (or lack thereof), it's not the evolutionary biologists:
I would say Laughlin's (a physicist's) assessment of the situation is accurate. Even Coyne describes the pecking order:
I'd say Laughlin is well within his purview, being a Nobel Laureate at the top of the pecking order to comment on evolutionary biology which is at the bottom, right above phrenology.
It seems to me Art is suffering from Physics Envy.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 18, 2005 @ 6:09 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
Donald,
I would imagine that they all read the document via e-mail and signed off. It's just the ol' knee-jerk reaction. It's all there "“ the Scopes context, ID = religion, religion doesn't belong in science, science and religion are not in conflict, etc. These arguments have been around on the ARN forum for years. The only novelty here is the Nobel status and letting the cat out of the bag with the assertion that evolution is unguided and unplanned.
Whoa. I must have missed this. So the Ken Miller who scolds the Cardinal for thinking that mainstream biologists view evolution as something that is unplanned and unguided is the same Ken Miller who teaches children everywhere that evolution proceeds without plan or purpose? Do you have a more complete reference for this claim?
Comment by MikeGene — September 18, 2005 @ 6:23 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 6:28 pm
Donald:
Yeah, I think you are closer to his point than Art is. I didn't read it and think he was arguing "enzymes actually do defy the laws of mass action."
Comment by MikeGene — September 18, 2005 @ 6:28 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 6:31 pm
If one reads the entire passage in its entire context, then it is clear that this statement is meant by Laughlin as an assertion of the behavior of proteins. That's why it is one of a list of three items, the other two of which are oft-mentioned themes in ID tomes, things that IDists pass off as fact.
Then there is the text before the specific assertion of interest here:
"Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong."
From this, we can see plain as day (not "supposed") that Laughlin thinks that "proteins defy the laws of mass action" is either an "embarassing experimental shortcoming" or a finding that "is questionable at best or at worst not even wrong". Not a hypothetical, but something that has come to pass.
As I've been saying, Laughlin's statement is the one that is "questionable at best, and at worst not even wrong". But, undoubtedly, it will make its way into ID-based science curricula since it is so in tune with ID theory.
I've looked and looked and looked, and I don't see the qualifier "supposedly" anywhere near the sentence under discussion. The context makes it painfully clear that, in Laughlin's mind, proteins do not obey the laws of mass action.
Interestingly, none of the ID supporters who have chimed in have bothered to take issue with Laughlin. 100% of all ID supporters agree that proteins do not obey the laws of mass action. Teachers in my school district will be both amazed and saddened.
But they will never be required, or even encouraged, to teach their students this garbage.
(I'm aware of Donald M's main point, BTW. But it doesn't deserve a serious response since the premise that is Laughlin's passage is so pathetic.)
Comment by Art — September 18, 2005 @ 6:31 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
This is too funny.
When Laughlin says "Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! " He isn't saying nor implying that all proteins do or any proteins do defy any law. His point is no matter what, for example IF a protein did violate some law, that evolutionists could just chime in with the standard form answer of "Evolution did it."
DonaldM has already pointed this out yet Art continues on.
Thanks for the entertainment Art.
Comment by Joe G — September 18, 2005 @ 6:47 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 8:10 pm
Art:
That's sloppy. I don't agree that "proteins do not obey the laws of mass action." I just don't buy your interpretation, where you have turned "your protein" into "proteins." Frankly, I'm not sure what Laughlin is saying, although I lean towards Donald's interpretation. Rather than buy into your tired, old "you're stupid" card (obviously, a function of your stereotypes), I would criticize Laughlin for a) asserting there are "embarrassing experimental shortcomings" without providing a detailed account of such shortcomings and b) asserting that Darwinian theory is being used to cover up and legitimize these without providing a detailed account. To me, it looks like lazy rhetoric. And such assertions require more than lazy rhetoric.
Art:
No, that's clear TO YOU, Art. You are not some Objective Observer who has the True Understanding on All Matters. Like the rest of us lowly humans, you have your own predispositions. You come to the table with a big axe in need of grinding and you have a track record of putting words in people's mouths.
Personally, I think his assertion has to do with the origin of proteins rather than the behavior of proteins, where he is envisioning them spontaneously assembling in the prebiotic soup. But it's just a guess. The difference is that I recognize I am guessing while you think you have The Truth. At some point Art, you need to recognize you have something we all have "“ opinions.
Comment by MikeGene — September 18, 2005 @ 8:10 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 11:20 pm
1. Why don't you ID advocates complain about the non-biologists who sign the screed from Discovery Institute? By far the majority of those signatories are not involved in science research, and only a small minority ever come close to evolution in biology. I smell hypocrisy in your complaints.
2. Note carefully that the list does not include the two Nobelists named Steve who have signed on to Project Steve over at NCSE. The list of 32 suggests a representation of much greater numbers.
3. 72 Nobelists signed the amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, in 1987. I'll bet there are several who do not overlap.
4. Have you ever noticed that not a single creationist nor IDist has ever won a Nobel in the biology areas, Physiology and Medicine, or Chemistry? Why is that? Could it be that ID is sterile as science as I have argued here?
5. These guys already have the Merit Badge that says they are Important Scientists. I'll bet that galls you no end.
6. Good heavens! You guys have not yet bothered to contact Laughlin to see his views on evolution?
Comment by edarrell — September 18, 2005 @ 11:20 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 11:30 pm
Hi Ed,
You make a good point (as usual), one I (perhaps foolishly) overlooked. Which is, obviously, that the passage provided may not truly reflect Laughlin's views on evolution and related matters.
Comment by Art — September 18, 2005 @ 11:30 pm
September 18th, 2005 at 11:44 pm
Ed:
There is no hypocrisy in anything I have contributed.
So what?
So what?
Maybe. Maybe not. What % of those 38 Nobel Prizes are indebted to Darwin's theory?
Not at all. It just shows that even Important Scientists don't know how to think about ID.
Nope.
Comment by MikeGene — September 18, 2005 @ 11:44 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 3:12 am
Thanks, Mike — it's good to know your criticisms of this list apply to the Discovery Institute, too. I'd hate to think that you were being hypocriticla here.
I'll let the guys at DI know . . .
Comment by edarrell — September 19, 2005 @ 3:12 am
September 19th, 2005 at 7:06 am
My criticism of this list is that none of the people appear to have ever given the concept of ID serious and open-minded consideration. As for the DI list, you don't see me waving it about to somehow justify something.
Comment by MikeGene — September 19, 2005 @ 7:06 am
September 19th, 2005 at 7:49 am
MikeGene:
"In many ways, each animal phylum represents an experiment in the design of body structures to perform the tasks necessary for survival. Of course, there has never been any kind of plan to these experiments because evolution works without either plan or purpose."(Biology, Miller & Levine, Prentice Hall, 1995, p. 658) "Evolution is random and undirected" (ibid.)
http://www.arn.org/docs/anders...
Here (in http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/ar... ) book has been quoted like this: "evolution is without plan or purpose"
" As Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine long asserted it in their popular text, "evolution works without plan or purpose." …
Notes:
"K. Miller and J. Levine, Biology, 5th ed. (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2000), 658. This same textbook also contains these similar statements: "it is important to keep this concept in mind: Evolution is random and undirected" (658, emphasis in the original), and "It is important to remember that genetic variation is not controlled or directed toward a goal" (299). Miller and Levine have removed the claim that "evolution works without plan or purpose" in the 2002 edition of their textbook. "
(Stephen C. Meyer and Michael Newton Keas: The Meanings of Evolution)
http://www.discovery.org/scrip...
Comment by Analyysi — September 19, 2005 @ 7:49 am
September 19th, 2005 at 9:14 am
Art and Ed,
From his book Laughlin I'm pretty sure could be called an emergentist with respect to evolution. After all the whole book is about emergence. He's certainly not an IDist. I highly recommend those interested in biology and evolution to read the book. He talks a lot about biology.
However, the quote in the thread wasn't about Laughlin's own particular views on evolution but to show that not all notable scientists support Dawinian theory.
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 19, 2005 @ 9:14 am
September 19th, 2005 at 9:38 am
So IDists really mean 'divine evolution' or 'inspired evolution' or 'purposeful evolution' or 'planned evolution' and then call that 'design'?
As people are fully aware that Darwin did not conclude 'plan' or 'purpose,' i.e. he did not see how such concepts (or percepts) could be applied to his mutability thesis, what now are i+d (ID) theorists doing to further his studies and research? It seems most IDists simply want to dissent against Darwin without crediting him for scientific development. Is this, along with pushing for 'ID' to be taught in public schools, an appropriate solution to the oncoming obsolesence of Darwinian theory? Why not give a scientist his dues?
Comment by g arago — September 19, 2005 @ 9:38 am
September 19th, 2005 at 10:12 am
Yeah, Darwin did predict a giant moth on Madagascar after he found an orchid with a long stemmed "nectar sack". Natural selection he "borrowed" from previous scientists. He did decent work with barnicles & pidgeons, too.
Darwin didn't know or understand biology at the cellular & molecular level. If he did I would wonder if he would have proposed that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to one or a few (single-celled?) populations or continued Linne's quest for the originally Created Kinds…
But anyway G Arago- planning is designing. For example the first populations evolved to the current diversity via a cleverly written & implanted genetic algorithm, along with all the necessary resources to achieve a specified goal. And if IDists are right, at least one goal was to have conscious observers to discover the grand scheme of the grand design that is our observed universe. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos was Designed for Discovery. If you design something for discovery surely you would design in discoverers and place them in a position to do the discoverying.
"Purposeful" in this sense would be goal-oriented- as opposed to "the blind-watchmaker" thesis.
It isn't that IDists want to dissent against Darwin. It is that if one objectively follows the evidence, one must. And actually it isn't decent, it is just that when current knowledge allows, old ideas & theories get modified.
I don't know if Darwin wanted to dissent against the church. Most likely he just wanted an open discussion of the data. Now it is the IDists who are requesting just that. And what do we get for that?
Comment by Joe G — September 19, 2005 @ 10:12 am
September 19th, 2005 at 3:29 pm
MikeGene:
Whoa. I must have missed this. So the Ken Miller who scolds the Cardinal for thinking that mainstream biologists view evolution as something that is unplanned and unguided is the same Ken Miller who teaches children everywhere that evolution proceeds without plan or purpose? Do you have a more complete reference for this claim?
Analyysi:
"In many ways, each animal phylum represents an experiment in the design of body structures to perform the tasks necessary for survival. Of course, there has never been any kind of plan to these experiments because evolution works without either plan or purpose."(Biology, Miller & Levine, Prentice Hall, 1995, p. 658) "Evolution is random and undirected" (ibid.)
http://www.arn.org/docs/anders...
Yes that's the quote. It seems pretty clear that Miller is conflicted on this issue. After all, wasn't it Miller who was depicted as the pious Catholic on the infamous PBS series "Evolution"? It reminded me of the old "Dick and Jane" 1st grade reader.
This is Kenny. See Kenny pray. See Kenny sing hymns. See Kenny and his family at church. See Kenny in his lab. See, Spot, you can believe in God and that evolution has no plan or purpose. Sorry, Spot, you are the end result of a process that didn't have you in mind. (woof woof)
In "Finding Darwin's God", Miller addresses the issue at length in chapter 8 "The Road Back Home". Rather than provide a pull quote (it would have to be too long), let me summarize the gist of Miller's argument here. Basically, he argues that it is undeniable that chance plays a vital role in human history. After all, God didn't purpose every single event that ever occurred. He says, "Chance is not only consistent with the idea of God, it is the only way in which a truly independent physical reality can exist." (p234-235 FDG, Paperback edition). He goes on to argue that since chance plays such an important role in human history, why is it unreasonable to believe that chance plays a vital role in natural history? But as he describes it, what he really means is that chance is the driving force both of human history as well as natural history. God just sits benignly by until humans show up and then He claims those for his own, or something like that, I guess.
But how can such a good Catholic as Miller purports to be make such an argument? Catholics hold scripture in high regard and one of the central themes of the old testament is God active in the affairs of human history to bring about certain results. Even worse for Miller's case is the central teaching of Christianity: that God invaded human history, became flesh in the person of Christ Jesus to change human history forever! So, to use Miller's logic in reverse, if God were active in human history, as the central teachings of Christianity indicate, then why is it so hard to accept that he was also active in natural history?
My read is that Miller wants to have his scientific cake and devour it with religious fervor!. But his arguments seem pretty weak logically, and theologically at odds with the very faith he purports to accept. (Other than that, he's got a great case!).
Comment by DonaldM — September 19, 2005 @ 3:29 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 4:08 pm
Hi Donald,
I agree with your assessment of Miller's position. See here.
I wonder if this ambiguity of language and theology is just one of psychological denial or duplicity. I would like to think it is denial but highly ambiguous documents like the Episcopal A CATECHISM OF CREATION makes me suspicious. It doesn't really take much analysis to see a neoDeism in the making. It will be interesting to see how church bodies react to this approach once it becomes clear what is being proposed. I'm also sure it will eventually come out.
BTW,
I just noticed that the NCSE is promoting it. What does that tell us?
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 19, 2005 @ 4:08 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
It may be that Miller, in the years since writing that textbook, has realized the implications of what he wrote and changed his mind, either as to its truth, or as to its (non)defensibility as a logical position.
But I am confused. I see references here to "theistic evolution" as if it were possible to be a theistic evolutionist and not accept any form of ID, and as if it were possible to be a theistic evolutionist and not in conflict with classical neoDarwinism.
It seems to me that once you accept the existence of God at all, you have fundamentally changed the equation. There can be no belief such as Dawkins has that the entire cosmos just happened to be lying around with suitable components, or that it popped up from nothingness.
Behe is an ID theorist who thinks random mutation can account for much of the life forms, with an occasional puff of smoke and intervention; Denton is an ID theorist who thinks the entire thing was equisitely front-loaded as early as the big bang, but in either case it is a whole different ball of wax once you've got a source of existence and natural law.
In my book, Miller is an ID theorist, whether he likes it or not. Didn't he also say in his book that God could be acting upon the quantum realm?
Comment by onething — September 19, 2005 @ 4:41 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 4:54 pm
Hi onething,
The terminology "theistic evolution" is the sort of ambiguity I'm talking about. I view it as a neoDeism and not a theistic view. In deism God creates the cosmos then leaves it alone to fend for itself. In this neoDeism God does not really relate in any personal way with the cosmos but merely sustains "natural law". When these neoDeists claim that God is present and active what they are really talking about is God just keeping the four fundamental forces (or some fundamental secondary cause) working. To me this approach totally destroys the relatedness that is so important to theism. It makes things like prayer irrelevant except as some psychological mechanism.
My fear is that many people will be deceived by this duplicity. Now since I'm a theist but not a Christian I point this out not as an attempt to shore up Christian theology. I just think people are being cleverly deceived and that's not right.
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 19, 2005 @ 4:54 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
Steve,
I'm sorry to be a dunce, but I had a look at your link and I don't see a problem. What's wrong with a little neoDeism? They said God has both a goal and a purpose, but not an exact blueprint, that he made a world that could make itself - I'm surprised NCSE could go along with it.
Comment by onething — September 19, 2005 @ 5:02 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
I see. Nonetheless, my earlier point was that even accepting this much totally changes the equation. Remember, we are not talking about a fulfilling spiritual life at this point, just the idea of purpose in the universe.
Even when they speak of God's words in the Bible, and Jesus and salvation? They also said that God had given to man those things which can be called God's image, i.e., intellect, reason, compassion and ability to relate to God. To be a Christian and also think God only sustains the fundamental forces seems impossible to me.
I interpret that essay as that the Churches are afraid to make fools of themselves, and they are being cautious and reasonable while leaving themselves a few outs, depending on which direction science goes.
Comment by onething — September 19, 2005 @ 5:17 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
Steve Petermann writes: ""I wonder if this ambiguity of language and theology is just one of psychological denial or duplicity. "
Hi Steve,
In Miller's case at least, I don't think so. I think he's seriously conflicted and thus confused on the entire question. On the hand, I think he is quite serious about being a Catholic and a believer in God and Christ. On the other, he wants scientific resepectability, so somehow has to reconcile God with what he believes (or thinks he knows) about the origins of life on earth. That he makes what appear to be contradictory statements seem to me to reflect his internal conflict.
In fairness to Miller, he probably doesn't see a conflict and no doubt thinks he's reconciled all these views. If he didn't think that, I doubt he would have written, "Finding Darwin's God". But I wonder if he realizes the nature of the contradictory picture he paints? Further, I wonder if he realizes how at odds with the Catholic doctrine he is on several points that he relies on to bolster his argument? He should spend some time reading Peter Kreeft's "Fundamentals of the Faith" which is as good an explanation of Catholic doctrine as you're going to find.
Comment by DonaldM — September 19, 2005 @ 5:40 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
Hey onething,
I think there are many factors involved surrounding the issue of intelligent design: scientific, sociological/political, personal, and spiritual. I know many are hestitant to mix these, but I am not.
However, there is a difference in what "purpose" means in a deistic, neodeistic, theistic, or some other framework. I guess one way to describe these differences is in teleological terms. The deistic view has a very weak teleology because what happens after the inception of the cosmos is essentially non-intentional. Neodeism is functionally no different. In theistic teleology, on the other hand, there is an organic continuum of purpose that is the dynamic interrelation of the state of affairs and intellect or mind.
I've dialoged with a lot of religionists over the years and what I have found is that many want desparately to be included in the scientific club. To me the catechism is just indicative of this. Instead I think these people should honor their theistic intuitions and get creative to see if there is a way to also honor a commitment to formulate a worldview that is science friendly. This obviously may mean changing one's religious views somewhat, but I think that is possible without abandoning core intuitions about reality.
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 19, 2005 @ 5:51 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 6:08 pm
Pretty much, yes. Here's a relevant quote on that subject from Finding Darwin's God:
"Remarkably, what the critics of evolution consistently fail to see is that the very indeterminancy they misconstrue as randomness has to be, by any definition, a key feature of the mind of God. Remeber, there is one (and only one) alternative to unpredictability — and that alternative is a strict, predictable determinism. The only alternative to what they [creationists] describe as randomness would be a nonrandom universe of clockwork mechanisms that would also rule out active intervention by any supreme Diety. Caught between these two alternatives, they fail to see that the one more consistent with their religious beliefs is actually the mainstream scientific view linking evolution with the quantum reality of the physical sciences." (FDG, pg 213 paperback edition)
Comment by DonaldM — September 19, 2005 @ 6:08 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 8:01 pm
Donald,
Yes I remember reading this and just wished Miller would come clean on what he really means by this. Since he doesn't I hate to say it sure looks duplicitous. The implication of his statements could be taken several ways. What I think he's saying based on his comments about purposelessnes is that God just sustains this non-intentional quantum indeterminancy. No true personal relatedness or intent.
Incredible. Again making some implications of his eariler statements (because he's not explicit) he doesn't seem to grasp another possibility, notably that there could be an intelligent relation. To me Miller shows an incredible lack of theological depth.
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 19, 2005 @ 8:01 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 8:31 pm
My view is that Miller didn't "come clean" (as you put it), because, from what I can tell, I don't think he knows what he means. The one thing I'm sure he means is that science must be viewed as a purely naturalistic enterprise. No intelligent causes need apply. That much, at least, is clear from most of what Miller writes. In he and Levine's textbook "Biology" (referenced above), he introduces the concept of science as the process of assuming that all natural phenomenon must have a natural cause. I don't have the book to give the exact quote, but that's pretty close. Regardless of what he might write elsewhere, I think that does, in fact, reflect his view of what science is.
Comment by DonaldM — September 19, 2005 @ 8:31 pm
September 19th, 2005 at 11:18 pm
Now that I understand, I take that back. In fact, this neodeism is going further into dualistic thinking and further from monism than even the old fashioned Christian outlook.
This deistic approach is thoroughly bizarre in terms of Christianity. If God had no intention or input into the making of humanity, why discuss sin, and who is God to judge? What meaning could that have toward beings from whom he is utterly separate? Isn't it strange to think humans just happened to evolve, and God had no input, but then he stepped in and made a virgin pregnant and resurrected himself at death and so forth? He didn't particularly care if human-like creatures arrived or not (was he even perhaps surprised?) but he wrote scriptures and parted the Red Sea for a small group he got involved with. And how does (someone like) Miller think people ended up with souls? What about angels? Did they evolve? The absurdities are legion.
I'm sure his ideas are no less at odds with Protestant doctrine.
Donald,
This is not what I thoght I remembered reading in Dembski's response to Miller on the flagellum debate. It is not clear at all that he thinks God ever acts on the quantum realm. First, he states that quantum uncertainty says something about the mind of God, good so far. But then he indicates that it is an either/or situation, that if God acts at all He must do so at absolutely every turn, leaving a clockwork universe. And even there, he states that a God capable of initiating a clockwork universe is for some reason unable to intervene if he chooses.
As does Dawkins, with his silly defenses of atheism.
Comment by onething — September 19, 2005 @ 11:18 pm
September 20th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
Hey onething,
You're right the absurdies are legion. While I greatly admire much in Christianity I do not subscribe to a lot of its beliefs. However, the fact that Miller and the Episcopal scientists are seeming to get a way with this absurdity greatly troubles me. Having been personally a Christian seminarian in the past, I understand the folks in the grass roots are not very knowledgable in theology and can easily be deceived. Most of those same folks are profoundly sincere in their theistic beliefs and embrace the call to a higher level of life. Of this I have a great admiration for them and think they deserve the church to honor their core religious sensibilities. In my view there is a deep duplicity involved in the attempt to subtlely persude them of a neoDeism. There is no question in my mind that this should be revealed and opposed.
Comment by Steve Petermann — September 20, 2005 @ 11:03 pm
September 22nd, 2005 at 2:45 pm
edarrell wrote:
Most likely it's because those responsible for giving Nobel prizes don't believe Creationists should get one, even if their work is deserving of it:
http://www.answersingenesis.or...
/kenter
Comment by kenter — September 22, 2005 @ 2:45 pm
October 2nd, 2005 at 4:26 am
My 2 cents… On the 38 Nobel laureates and their letter:
A direct quote from the letter:
"We are also concerned by the Board's recommendation of August 8, 2005 to allow standards that include greater criticism of evolution."
My concern is with the "criticism of evolution" statement. Any idea, hypothesis, or theory should always be criticized based upon current knowledge - is that not how progress is made? Why should we stop critiqing evolution, ID, or current methods of treating cancer? Eventually all will be improved or replaced with progress. I guess I just don't understand why these Nobel Prize winners would think any theory should be immune from criticism.
Comment by Epicman — October 2, 2005 @ 4:26 am
October 2nd, 2005 at 10:22 am
Epicman, I suspect that the 38 Nobelists are opposed to the introduction, into the HS class, of the "problems" that are pushed by the Discovery Institute and its Fellows. There is nothing of substance or merit in the antievolution literature that comes from the ID camp. And while one might argue that it would do students good to tear away at mistaken criticisms, it is also true that the starting points for such exercises should be more than the inept litany of fact-free "biology" and strawman arguments that passes as scholarship in ID circles.
Comment by Art — October 2, 2005 @ 10:22 am